Please note: we have been online over ten years, and we want The Trek BBS to continue as a free site. But if you block our ads we are at risk.Please consider unblocking ads for this site - every ad you view counts and helps us pay for the bandwidth that you are using. Thank you for your understanding.

Welcome! The Trek BBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans. Please login to see our full range of forums as well as the ability to send and receive private messages, track your favourite topics and of course join in the discussions.

If you are a new visitor, join us for free. If you are an existing member please login below. Note: for members who joined under our old messageboard system, please login with your display name not your login name.

You give a character superpowers and the only way you can tell an interesting story is to take them away ? What was the point of giving them to that person in the first place ?

Heroes jumped the shark when it started doing that over and over again, so I would hope that nobody would be dumb enough to do it here.

Don't be silly, it isn't the only way you can tell an interesting story but it is one way.

Heroes had various problems with its stories, much as I enjoyed them, including a tendency to use the reset button, and rehashing themes that should have been done and dusted. Plus, it isn't really Carol's story, it's Rogue's - Carol becomes a vegetable after losing her mind (in the comics Professor X actually restored most of her memories but none of the emotions attached to them - there was also a great scene where she chewed out the Avengers for abandoning her). In Heroes, Nicky's split personality was an interesting twist on the alter ego theme and giving some of that to Rogue could be interesting too. Carol can sit in a coma for a movie for all I care.

I'm not being 'silly'. Practically every superhero with powers to lose I can think of has been depowered at some point.

That's not why you were being called silly. You were being called silly because you said that depowering a hero was the 'only' way to tell an interesting story. Which is silly.

Did people miss the question mark ?

Hermiod wrote:

^No, it's lazy.
You give a character superpowers and the only way you can tell an interesting story is to take them away >>>> ? <<<< What was the point of giving them to that person in the first place ?

One of, if not THE, driving forces of Hulk stories is that Banner wants to be "de-powered" and not be Hulk.

Granted other heroes don't have Banners problem, just saying its not necessarily a bad story telling device.

It does depend on how the stories are handled. The Thing's moaning did get a bit old but Storm had her powers wiped by Forge in the 90s and it led to a very interesting story arc. Wolvie lost his powers nad started to die (since his bones couldn't make enough red blood cells).

It is true though that most long term heroes have lost their powers at least once! In terms of a movie franchise, I think they will only do it if they want to resolve a character's story to introduce some new characters. Since it is part of any character's comic history, nobody is safe!

Plus fans of Ms Marvel need not worry if she is in a coma for an Xmen movie as long as she's awake again for the next Avengers flick. Ms Marvel and Wasp do seem the most likely candidates for the future but the line up may well depend on who they think they can sell as a solo franchise. Maybe Hawkeye is up for his own flick and Mockingbird will feature there...?

Oh no, not in Avengers 2 - in X-men 4 or 5 but they would need to introduce Carol in Avengers first obviously for the mind wipe to have any real meaning. I loved Rogue in X-men 1 but she was a bit superfluous in 2 and 3. She needs super strength and flight and somebody else's personality in her head to make her interesting again. There were even a few comics where Carol's consciousness took complete control of her body. I don't think that would be lazy story-telling though - it's a classic part of the characters' history with quite a lot of potential.

One problem the X-Men movies and the Avengers film are not in the same continuity becuase Fox has the film rights to X-Men.

Not only will the rumor that Nathan Fillion will be Ant-Man not die, it's got a mate: Eva Longoria-Parker for The Wasp.
The Wasp would be unrecognizable without Ant-Man/Giant-Man/Goliath/Yellowjacket. Or would she be unrecognizable period?

What would a dangerous housewife bring to the mix?

__________________
The people of this country need regime change here, not abroad.

"I keep hearing about that," "I think it’s a fantastic rumor!" she added with a laugh. "We're just going to go with it. Maybe it'll get me hired!"

So, while she is saying she will not be Wasp the second part of her statement is what perks me up.

"I had taken a meeting about a different movie at Marvel, and that’s where the rumor started,"

So she was at the Marvel Studio offices and did meet with them for a part, just not for Avengers and not Wasp.
That causes me to be curious which of the announced 'smaller budgeted' films that Marvel is looking to do might she be up for? Runaways perhaps? Is there a main adult role in that saga she could play? A role in the Punisher film?